I don't know that it even does that.  Logically, the ones who have the intelligence and resources to use abortion are those who are above the level of people in Idiocracy.

But yeah, it's funny that this quote hasn't been around more.

it's not infrequent that ginsburg is called a radical.  she's a hardcore feminist.  it is the defining element of her jurisprudence.

i haven't seen idiocracy but it stands to reason that social classes who have abortions most frequently are also those most reliant on social welfare programs.  i think the statistics of the socioeconomic status of abortion-seekers will bear this out but i'm not gonig to take the time to check

@WyomingSheepRanch - She is called a radical but that is not something you hear in the main stream press. While Antonin Scalia's name is rarely mentioned with out him being labeled as being hard to the right.

Population control!!!  I hope she was talking about the handicapped.  They take all the good spots at WalMart.

@trunthepaige - frankly, you don't hear much about justices in the mainstream media.  for the most part they stay out of the media spotlight.

scalia is probably the most vocal (and pugilistic) of the current justices, which explains why he is in the media so much.  and his talking points are typically on his pet issues which are very conservative.

ginsburg on the other hand is far more introverted, so you simply won't see as much about her one way or another.  that viewpoint you mentioned above is clearly radical, but many of her positions are much more reflective of mainstream america than scalia's.  she often takes a unique course at arriving at those decisions (read: feminism), but the end result is typically more moderate

@TheTheologiansCafe - a good spot at walmart is the same as a good seat in hell.

People of all classes have abortions.

You do know she was not one of the judges to vote on that case? Odd that you wrote this as if she was and as if she was explaining HER motivation, which is not remotely the context of the statement in reality. Don't let a little thing like actual honesty get in the way of a nice smear now. This may be your blog, but if you plan to smear somebody and publish it for others to read, get your facts right.

I don't think Scalia is an extremist. He is highly conservative but has a strong grasp of constitutional principles, so he doesn't pull his rulings out of thin air (even if they are, ultimately, unsound). The honor of being called the court's extremist is saved for Thomas, who has not even the remotest concept of the law, and who issues separate decisions all the time that are too conservative even for Scalia, and which have absolutely no legal basis. He is an extremist. He is, in my view, the only extremist on the court, in spite of your attempt to smear Ginsburg in this post. Having ideological differences does not render somebody an extremist, and your name-calling is simplistic and inaccurate.

If you want to write essays on the Supreme Court, I suggest you learn something about it and about its members first. This is beyond irresponsible.

@WyomingSheepRanch - Yeah, but at least Hell has more interesting people.

People of all classes have abortions, but honestly I feel that it'd be best to cut down on the lower income women having multiple children they can't care for. That's my biggest pet peeve in the world - baby machines with government funding. Ugh! But yeah, I would like to make abortion more accessible and affordable to those people - it's better for their lives, the lives of their current children, and our own wallets.

But as far as the Idiocracy style thing? Well...my sarcastic asshole side says hell yes! The world doesn't need ANYMORE stupid people. But the humanitarian in me says who am I to say who's worthy of having children, etc, and there are just so many issues...basically it would be difficult for me to ENCOURAGE abortion to any one group of people.

@AFS90 - haha true.  it's a kind of scary place to people watch though.

@Paul_Partisan - i doubt at the same rates though.  people of all classes do drugs too.

@WyomingSheepRanch - If you watch Idiocracy, you will be seeing a movie that scares me, to the point I can't even really laugh at it, because I am sort of afraid it's slowly coming true.

This is an interesting post but most of the people I've known who support people like ginsberg either agree with her, or are too stubborn hear something like this and change their minds. They're to admit that liberalism has gaping flaws. They're just like most conservatives, except in the opposite direction (an observation that further supports the idea that idiocracy is closer to coming true than we would hope). As long as people support the wrong ideas of extremists, just because they agree with the right ones, we will continue to decline as a country. You shouldn't throw out the baby, but sometimes the bathwater needs to be changed.

I cannot even describe how much I despise the idea of "overpopulation" and the need to cut back on people. What the heck? People are a renewable resource of ideas and solutions. Oh yeah, cutting down on people sounds like a fabulous notion... :p

~V

@elgaberino - i'm not sure what you're getting at, but i think you're replying to my statement that many of ginsburg's positions are reflective of mainstream america's.

i think that requires clarification:  i was not saying that most of ginsburg's positions or decisions are radical.  i stated that the course she takes to reach to her decisions is "unique" (some would say radical).  that doesn't mean that the ultimate decision is radical at all.

this same phenomenon can be observed at the opposite end of the spectrum with thomas.

After having lengthy "discussion" with that fuckwit "S_K_O_T"? I can safely say "YES".

Idiocracy as a movie scares the living shit out of me. I see that movie and honestly think that future could possibly happen. Ginsburg doesn't get much press because most of the justices don't get attention at all. Ginsberg wasn't on the court for Roe but the justices appointed by Reagan were. Those damn conservatives legislating from the bench (sarcasm of course)...

@WyomingSheepRanch - No. Actually I meant the first part to be for you and the rest as a response to the author's post, not for your comment. I was just commenting on the fact that you haven't seen and Idiocracy, and implying that you might do so. It's actually a maddeningly well-executed concept; but I won't ruin it for you by overexplaining.

As to your comment about radical means to mainstream ends in Ginsberg and Thomas, I am more concerned about the people who are naive enough (and desperately, stubbornly politically loyal enough) to convince themselves that nobody on their side (whether liberal or conservative) is actually evil or wrong.

A lot of liberals wouldn't agree with Ginsberg's statement but would still feel an obligation to support her anyway, hoping she isn't actually supportive of eugenic policies. Of course, more concerning are the actual eugenics people, but I concede that might be a different conversation for a different thread.

She's a eugenicist. The roots of birth control are also in eugenics. Abortion was another step, in the guise of a woman's right to choose. It's all there to look up. Thanks to the net, it's much easier than it used to be to educate one's self on these things 

I LOVE that you tied in Idiocracy! That move scares the bejesus out of me for the same reason it scares the shit out of Leonidas! As for the question itself...a tad frightening, the responses you could get.

Honestly not at all the reason I'm pro-choice, but I'm sure there are people out there who keep that in mind.

@shy_and_sad - I
know a lot about supreme court and law in general. Obviously you have
not read much of what I write, or you would know that already.  I made
no reference to Ginsburg serving back in the early 1970's and her quote
makes it more than obvious (in my eyes) that she was not on that court. Sorry this
little entry really doesn't qualify as an essay, it was more of an
editorial comment.

You might try reading for content before making asshat comments such as the one you just made.

As
to proving Ginsburg an extremist, that would be a simple thing to do, if
I so chose to do it. But I will just let her words here speak for
themselves this time.They say so much about her without getting into her beliefs that a judge need have little respect for the wording and the original intend of the law being interpreted

@AibellFaeire - I have not notice that you would qualify as one of "abortion's most ardent supporters". So I'm not surprised to hear you don't think in those terms. When one brings up the extremes, there is always the danger of insulting the moderate supporter.Or even appearing to be attacking a straw man.

@Leonidas - I think you meant Nixon's appointees it was a liberal court that made that ruling

@trunthepaige - Oh don't worry, I wasn't insulted. I'm more insulted that said judge would insinuate that all pro-choicers are "supporters of abortion." Not at all what I, at the very least, am about.